Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#1201

Many lunatics in the left seriously believe that "Nazis are in power" in the US. So basically the only thing that Trump has to do to cover his ass is not be an outright nazi (pretty easy) and they'll look like rabid lunatics.

Trump can encourage graft and corruption on an unprecedented scale, say any kind of bullshit he wants, act as incompetently as he can, start wars, ignore laws, and he'll still look better than what the SJW left portrays him as. And if they carry on acting like idiots they'll make him win again.

Trump has found the best of opposition one leader can dream of in the SJWs: they're deranged and utterly unrealistic. He can do whatever he wants and as long as it's not ethnic cleansing or laws against "racial mixing" or encouraging racist aggression they'll look like madmen.

You can bet your ass that he's going to tar the entire US left with the ideas and actions of "Nazi punching" crowd, and the saner leftists will find themselves in a very awkward position, since there's little to no mainstream pushback against SJW ideas.

#1202

Many lunatics in the left seriously believe that "Nazis are in power" in the US. So basically the only thing that Trump has to do to cover his ass is not be an outright nazi (pretty easy) and they'll look like rabid lunatics.

Trump can encourage graft and corruption on an unprecedented scale, say any kind of bullshit he wants, act as incompetently as he can, start wars, ignore laws, and he'll still look better than what the SJW left portrays him as. And if they carry on acting like idiots they'll make him win again.

Trump has found the best of opposition one leader can dream of in the SJWs: they're deranged and utterly unrealistic. He can do whatever he wants and as long as it's not ethnic cleansing or laws against "racial mixing" or encouraging racist aggression they'll look like madmen.

You can bet your ass that he's going to tar the entire US left with the ideas and actions of "Nazi punching" crowd, and the saner leftists will find themselves in a very awkward position, since there's little to no mainstream pushback against SJW ideas.

#1203

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Remember that a large part of those advocating violence against "nazis" are the same who defended the Charlie Hebdo shootings because the islamists were "offended".

We should have seen that coming.

Je suis Pepe.

Guest_a10ad49b · #1204

Milo's book is now number 1 best seller on Amazon.

I bet that comes as as a total surprise to the protesters who can't think of anything except signalling their virtue.

#1205

I'm tellin' y'all, it started with Rushdie. Unless someone's got an earlier reference.

#1206

rayshul wrote:I'm tellin' y'all, it started with Rushdie. Unless someone's got an earlier reference.

The origin of the term "islamophobia" should count for something, surely?

One early use cited as the term's first use is by the painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad.[56][57] Writing in French, they used the term islamophobie

#1207

rayshul wrote:I'm tellin' y'all, it started with Rushdie. Unless someone's got an earlier reference.

Seems a pretty good bet - Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim (1995; highly recommended) certainly uses that as a defining moment. However, Warraq and others have argued that Julien Benda’s “Treason of the Intellectuals” was the precursor. From a NYT review of Berman's Flight of the Intellectuals:

The masterwork, however, is still Julien Benda’s “Treason of the Intellectuals.” This book, written in 1927 by one of the leading French intellectuals of the early 20th century, may be regarded as the inaugural work of the line. Berman’s own books can usefully be read as restatements (in their own register, of course) of Benda’s polemic against his fellow intellectuals.

For Benda, the intellectual betrays his vocation when he compromises his commitment to universalist values. The temptation to make such compromises, he argues, lies principally in the appeal of national sentiment, to which intellectuals are quick to subordinate themselves. And the role they assume as nationalists is to conceptualize political hatreds. Benda, a supporter of Dreyfus, deplored the eagerness of some French writers to play this degraded, ignominious role.

For Berman, the contemporary intellectual’s temptation is somewhat differently constituted. It consists of the following elements: the false identification of liberal values with an oppressive West, and of political Islamism with an oppressed third world; an unreflective, unqualified opposition to every exercise of American power; a certain blindness regarding, or even tenderness toward, contemporary expressions of anti-Semitism. ....

#1208

rayshul wrote:I'm tellin' y'all, it started with Rushdie. Unless someone's got an earlier reference.

It started long before that with the Frankfurt School. To make a long story short: commies disappointed that the worldwide communist revolution never came started from spontaneous working class uprisings to think that the next revolutionary front was culture, and the next revolutionaries were going to be the outright outcasts: criminals, minorities, etc. Also the anti-colonial movements succeeded, which made some commies believe that POCs were going to start the communist revolution and whiteys were all colonial capitalistic shitlords.

Iran came and the left heavily supported Khomeini, who got rid of them after the Islamic Revolution. Every time the commies thought that that the fight against the evil western devils was also a fight for communism they were sorely disappointed, but they still think that the "Good Savages" untainted by the Evil Capitalism don't have, you know, their own plans and ideas, but are simply tools of the Great Revolutionary Communistic Spirit.

Commies are laughingstocks and failures these days, so some of them have started to believe again that by allying themselves with the great islamic anti-western revolution (which is actually more complicated than that...) they'll finally realize their dreams. They're going to be disappointed once again, but they're dreamers, so they won't stop dreaming the communist dream until their backs are against the wall.

#1209

Arthur Chu, the Great Asian Knight of Damsels in Distress, reacts to a video of female supporter of Milo getting maced for no reason with outright glee:

I've always thought that Chu was projecting his misogyny onto others. Now I have evidence of it. Video are women getting maced for their opinions are hilarious if the woman has the "wrong" opinions.

#1210

Kirbmarc wrote:Oh, and he's also convinced that the libertarian Reason magazine is basically a Nazi magazine, because some of its back issues defended the rights of Holocaust deniers.

SJWs don't get the Y-axis.

Everything is either Left (good) or Right (evil).

Reason is shit on climate change but their stuff on police violence is spot on.

#1211

Kirbmarc wrote:Arthur Chu, the Great Asian Knight of Damsels in Distress, reacts to a video of female supporter of Milo getting maced for no reason with outright glee:

[tweet.][/tweet]

I've always thought that Chu was projecting his misogyny onto others. Now I have evidence of it. Video are women getting maced for their opinions are hilarious if the woman has the "wrong" opinions.

Mel Brooks wrote:“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”

I'm not quite ready to start policing other peoples sense of humour.

#1212

A friend of mine has posted the following. It's obviously aimed at an audience who will just agree with it, but I wondered if anyone has a response? If someone has anything to say I'll send it to this person.

Serious question for the "wait and see" brigade re: Trump.

Clearly people aren't rejecting him out of bias and expectation, they're opposed to things he says and does. He says he's going to attack human rights and persecute people based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or income; then, he signs an executive order and does those things.
That's the situation in front of us. It has fuck all to do with living in a bubble or the way social media filters our perception of the world, it's current events. We're learning this information by watching him.

So when people say "well he won the election, wait and see before you judge him", I want to know what it would take for you to admit this administration is fascist. Swastika mown onto the White House lawn? Gas chamber schematics? What are you waiting to see, please?

#1213

MarcusAu wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:Arthur Chu, the Great Asian Knight of Damsels in Distress, reacts to a video of female supporter of Milo getting maced for no reason with outright glee:

[tweet.][/tweet]

I've always thought that Chu was projecting his misogyny onto others. Now I have evidence of it. Video are women getting maced for their opinions are hilarious if the woman has the "wrong" opinions.

Mel Brooks wrote:“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”
I'm not quite ready to start policing other peoples sense of humour.

Oh, I'm not policing his sense of humor. I'm not calling him to get banned. But I just find it funny that a supposed paladin of oppressed women is ready to laugh if the "wrong" women get maced for no reason.

#1214

Kirbmarc wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Is the US in the middle of a coup?

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... fcce435a92
Yonathan Zunger is a full-McIntosh SJW (who thinks that STEM should be a "safe space" for women who are "silenced" simply by the fact of being among too many men and whose main concern is protecting women on the internet as a "vulnerable category" along with children) who thinks that Trump's administration will go after Jews next (...yeah). I'm not saying that his analysis is complete bullshit, I'm just taking it with a pinch of salt.

He's also argued very much in favor of "punching Nazis" so he's a bit of an authoritarian cunt himself:

Yonathan Zunger wrote:On Twitter, a debate has emerged in the past few days about punching Nazis. But much to my relief, it hasn't been much of a debate; pretty much everyone agrees that punching Nazis is only effective if you swing from the hip, not the arm, and follow through.

The guy is a dick.

But I find the concept that Trump is running rings around convention fairly compelling. The fact he is bringing in a new system of command and control is a form of "slow-mo coup". I have no doubt that the more he could move toward Putin style unilateralism the happier he would be.

Problem is I'm not sure I care. Or whether I'm scared shitkess. This is wild. :burn:

#1215

DrokkIt wrote:A friend of mine has posted the following. It's obviously aimed at an audience who will just agree with it, but I wondered if anyone has a response? If someone has anything to say I'll send it to this person.

Serious question for the "wait and see" brigade re: Trump.

Clearly people aren't rejecting him out of bias and expectation, they're opposed to things he says and does. He says he's going to attack human rights and persecute people based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or income; then, he signs an executive order and does those things.
That's the situation in front of us. It has fuck all to do with living in a bubble or the way social media filters our perception of the world, it's current events. We're learning this information by watching him.

So when people say "well he won the election, wait and see before you judge him", I want to know what it would take for you to admit this administration is fascist. Swastika mown onto the White House lawn? Gas chamber schematics? What are you waiting to see, please?

What exactly has Trump done which is "fascistic"? When has he "persecuted" people based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or income?

What Trump has done is:

a) close borders, at least temporarily, to citizens of same countries in the MENA region. There's plenty to criticize about this, it might be unconstitutional (or not: it depends on how interpret the US constitution) but this isn't "fascistic". There's no human right to immigrate in the US. Countries close their borders to people all the time for security reasons. Trump's executive order goes overboard in applying those restrictions to entire countries, but it's merely an escalation of procedures which were in place or proposed under Obama. He's not "targeting muslims": the list of countries is by no means exhaustive of all muslim countries, and US nationals who are muslims aren't affected. He's not "targeting brown people", either, for the same reason.

Nobody got arrested or killed or tortured as a result for the act, some people were detained for a few hours until they were flown out of the US. You can criticize this but it's nowhere near comparable to things that fascist regimes have done. I know that people say that this is only the beginning, but that's why others say to "wait and see". If there's no further escalation this won't be the beginning of anything.

b) remove US funding to NGOs and other international associations which might promote abortion. This isn't "targeting people for their gender" or "their sexuality". It's a terrible idea for the health of women in the Third World but it's not infringing on anyone's rights. It's a decision which has been made by every Republican president since Reagan. There's no "right to receive US aid".

What do we wait to see to call this a "fascistic" regime? Laws that really infringe on people's rights, like making the practice of Islam illegal in the US, or restricting it to specific areas, or prohibiting or discouraging marriages between muslims and non-muslims, or taking away one's rights to speech, property or defense simply for being muslim. The same thing is true for all the other people who are mentioned as "targets" of Trump's policies.

You equivocate not being admitted to the US, likely for a limited amount of time, with your civil rights being violated in the US. That's simply absurd.

#1216

Drokkit honestly I'm enjoying King Trump's moves so far. I guess I'm waiting for one that I won't like to be critical.

I really hope it's not going to be one about vaccinations... :(

#1217

Come at me Fox.

http://i.imgur.com/oHiaQ0A.jpg

#1218

That fungoid-looking motherfucker once said Yiannopoulos had "unfortunate" hair. In a sea of social misfits, Arthur Chu is a standout.

http://imgur.com/zedMYu2.jpg

http://imgur.com/2rGGggg.jpg

http://imgur.com/eYluNdo.jpg

#1219

Kirbmarc wrote:
DrokkIt wrote:A friend of mine has posted the following. It's obviously aimed at an audience who will just agree with it, but I wondered if anyone has a response? If someone has anything to say I'll send it to this person.

Serious question for the "wait and see" brigade re: Trump.

Clearly people aren't rejecting him out of bias and expectation, they're opposed to things he says and does. He says he's going to attack human rights and persecute people based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or income; then, he signs an executive order and does those things.
That's the situation in front of us. It has fuck all to do with living in a bubble or the way social media filters our perception of the world, it's current events. We're learning this information by watching him.

So when people say "well he won the election, wait and see before you judge him", I want to know what it would take for you to admit this administration is fascist. Swastika mown onto the White House lawn? Gas chamber schematics? What are you waiting to see, please?
What exactly has Trump done which is "fascistic"? When has he "persecuted" people based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or income?

What Trump has done is:

a) close borders, at least temporarily, to citizens of same countries in the MENA region. There's plenty to criticize about this, it might be unconstitutional (or not: it depends on how interpret the US constitution) but this isn't "fascistic". There's no human right to immigrate in the US. Countries close their borders to people all the time for security reasons. Trump's executive order goes overboard in applying those restrictions to entire countries, but it's merely an escalation of procedures which were in place or proposed under Obama. He's not "targeting muslims": the list of countries is by no means exhaustive of all muslim countries, and US nationals who are muslims aren't affected. He's not "targeting brown people", either, for the same reason.

Nobody got arrested or killed or tortured as a result for the act, some people were detained for a few hours until they were flown out of the US. You can criticize this but it's nowhere near comparable to things that fascist regimes have done. I know that people say that this is only the beginning, but that's why others say to "wait and see". If there's no further escalation this won't be the beginning of anything.

b) remove US funding to NGOs and other international associations which might promote abortion. This isn't "targeting people for their gender" or "their sexuality". It's a terrible idea for the health of women in the Third World but it's not infringing on anyone's rights. It's a decision which has been made by every Republican president since Reagan. There's no "right to receive US aid".

What do we wait to see to call this a "fascistic" regime? Laws that really infringe on people's rights, like making the practice of Islam illegal in the US, or restricting it to specific areas, or prohibiting or discouraging marriages between muslims and non-muslims, or taking away one's rights to speech, property or defense simply for being muslim. The same thing is true for all the other people who are mentioned as "targets" of Trump's policies.

You equivocate not being admitted to the US, likely for a limited amount of time, with your civil rights being violated in the US. That's simply absurd.

This is such a good response that I fear actually response-posting it (even if I make it clear that it's verbatim) might actually just lead to everyone having a go at me and labelling me a alt-right troll shitlord W H I T E M A L E redpill whatever.

These folks seems conflate offering an understanding of something with the act of supporting it.

#1220

Ever wonder where "Aids Skrillex" and his "comrades" get their ideas from?

Wonder no more...

[youtube][/youtube]

Infamy beckons.

#1221

Brive1987 wrote:The guy is a dick.

But I find the concept that Trump is running rings around convention fairly compelling. The fact he is bringing in a new system of command and control is a form of "slow-mo coup". I have no doubt that the more he could move toward Putin style unilateralism the happier he would be.

Problem is I'm not sure I care. Or whether I'm scared shitless. This is wild. :burn:

Putin style unilateralism simply isn't possible in the US. The Russian constitution had pretty obvious loopholes which Putin exploited (like the prohibition for "two consecutive term limits" and the dual President/Prime Minister role, which he exploited by propping up ~~a talking puppet~~ Medvedev for one term as president while Putin was simply Prime Minister), which just aren't there in the US. Trump may dream about it, but if he tries to enact those things the Supreme Court will rule against him and the House Republicans will impeach him. To say nothing of the series of murders and beatings of critics of the Putin regime, or of the blackmail of opponents through the FSB (formerly known as KGB) which isn't bound by rules, checks or balances like the US agencies are.

Instead Trump is working on the sidelines, using the presidential powers he already has to change people within the departments when they resign. It's unprecedented to a degree but not anti-constitutional. He can't do as much as Putin has done, though, or nowhere near enough. So far he's just substituting people he dislike with people he likes with no regard for bipartisan consideration or the tradition of employing the same civil servants until they retire and retaining his own private security system. Unprecedented but doesn't give him any kind of special power. The Secret Service still exists, he can't just abolish it, and neither can he abolish the Departments he wants to staff with loyalists.

The most worrying side of Trump's politics is the conflict of interests. He hasn't disclosed his tax returns, he's accepted gifts and emoluments through various loopholes, he's circumventing rules about nepotism. That's what worries me the most. Trump isn't after absolute power, he's after a way to get even richer/avoid going bankrupt again/avoid legal troubles for graft and corruption. The similarities with Silvio Berlusconi are just uncanny.

I don't think that Trump is actually interested in Putin's flavor of unilateralism, to be honest. The guy is already old, he's going to be even older in four/eight years. Putin came into power when he was young, he's younger than Trump and can reasonably expect to live another 20 or even 30 years. Trump is 71, he's going to be 78 in 2024, and there's no widespread consensus for him to be able to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment. Two terms are what's likely to get at the very best.

I think that he expects to do enough of what he promised to get re-elected, to get away with blatant conflicts of interests and nepotism and then retire and pass on the Trump brand to one of his children, probably Ivanka. Others expect to piggyback on his success to cross over items on their Christmas list. Creating an unilateral regime is the least of his concerns.

One thing he'll very likely do is use SJW protests against him to cry that he's a poor victim and his critics are all nutters, probably to distract people from the graft and corruption that will take place.

As David Frum has written he'll likely build a kleptocracy/autocracy, not a old style fascist regime. Read this article instead of Zunger's speculations:

Civil unrest will not be a problem for the Trump presidency. It will be a resource. Trump will likely want not to repress it, but to publicize it—and the conservative entertainment-outrage complex will eagerly assist him. Immigration protesters marching with Mexican flags; Black Lives Matter demonstrators bearing anti-police slogans—these are the images of the opposition that Trump will wish his supporters to see. The more offensively the protesters behave, the more pleased Trump will be. Calculated outrage is an old political trick, but nobody in the history of American politics has deployed it as aggressively, as repeatedly, or with such success as Donald Trump.

Trump will try hard during his presidency to create an atmosphere of munificence ... in which graft does not matter because rules and institutions do not matter. He’ll want to associate economic benefit with personal favor … That, over time, is what truly subverts institutions of democracy and the rule of law.

Outside the Islamic world, the 21st century is not an era of ideology. The grand utopian visions of the 19th century have passed out of fashion. The nightmare totalitarian projects of the 20th have been overthrown or have disintegrated, leaving behind only outdated remnants: North Korea, Cuba. What is spreading today is repressive kleptocracy, led by rulers motivated by greed rather than by the deranged idealism of Hitler or Stalin or Mao. Such rulers rely less on terror and more on rule-twisting, the manipulation of information, and the co-optation of elites.

TL;DR: Insider trading, nepotism and cronyism on an unprecedented scale are far more likely than an outright "coup".

#1222

rayshul wrote:Drokkit honestly I'm enjoying King Trump's moves so far. I guess I'm waiting for one that I won't like to be critical.

I really hope it's not going to be one about vaccinations... :(

I'll offer you more from the same individual:

I just feel like "social media is telling us what we want to hear" is becoming a catch-all for any solid political stance. Clearly when Richard Spencer talks about wanting to commit genocide or Bannon speaks of wanting total war we are not filtering that through a lens of easily offended leftist mushiness, we're hearing people proudly confess to being Nazis and it's rightly terrifying.

This is what I am dealing with. People have every right to be worried about how they think a policy decision might play out, but that isn't what is going on.

#1223

#1224

No clue as to motive:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... dly-shoot/

#1225

Another great quote by Frum:

Donald trump will not set out to build an authoritarian state. His immediate priority seems likely to be to use the presidency to enrich himself. But as he does so, he will need to protect himself from legal risk. Being Trump, he will also inevitably wish to inflict payback on his critics. Construction of an apparatus of impunity and revenge will begin haphazardly and opportunistically. But it will accelerate. It will have to.

That's what I'm afraid about. Not "fascism" but widespread corruption, complete impunity as long as you're on Trump's side and lawsuits against all the critics. Basically what Trump has always done in the private system by suing anyone who exposed him as a fraud, only with the powers of the presidency.

Trump isn't an ideologue. He's giving easy answers which are popular, he doesn't care about changing the nature of the US. If he picks fights it's to distract people from the crimes/unethical things he's committing to enrich himself and his family and friends:

Whenever Trump stumbles into some kind of trouble, he reacts by picking a divisive fight. The morning after The Wall Street Journal published a story about the extraordinary conflicts of interest surrounding Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Trump tweeted that flag burners should be imprisoned or stripped of their citizenship. That evening, as if on cue, a little posse of oddballs obligingly burned flags for the cameras in front of the Trump International Hotel in New York. Guess which story dominated that day’s news cycle?

SJW cunts are useful idiots for Trump. He doesn't need to repress them with full force when he can use their idiocy to distract people from his conflicts of interests and general cronyism.

A would-be kleptocrat is actually better served by spreading cynicism than by deceiving followers with false beliefs: Believers can be disillusioned; people who expect to hear only lies can hardly complain when a lie is exposed. The inculcation of cynicism breaks down the distinction between those forms of media that try their imperfect best to report the truth, and those that purvey falsehoods for reasons of profit or ideology. The New York Times becomes the equivalent of Russia’s RT; The Washington Post of Breitbart; NPR of Infowars.

That's the key point of Trump's war against the press: not to promote a belief, but to encourage cynicism, to make sure that if stories of his conflicts of interests and corruption appear people simply groan about yet another worthless scandal since "the media are all corrupt".

Trump is a con man. His aim is to get himself and his cronies filthy rich. His means are getting impunity by manipulating the electorate into giving him the power to let himself and his cronies untouched by the law, or by the press, or by public opinion, so they can steal and make deals that benefit themselves over the public without any pesky ethics committee or courts or criticism in the media or risk of losing elections.

Moronic protesters who call him a Nazi are good for him. So are all the SJWs who say he's "starting a coup!" He doesn't need any coups to do what he wants to do, namely giving enough to his fans to keep them happy while he becomes even richer and makes his friends and supporters incredibly rich, too, by any possible mean, getting away with corruption and looking good while he does it.

#1226

DrokkIt wrote:A friend of mine has posted the following. It's obviously aimed at an audience who will just agree with it, but I wondered if anyone has a response? If someone has anything to say I'll send it to this person.

Serious question for the "wait and see" brigade re: Trump.

Clearly people aren't rejecting him out of bias and expectation, they're opposed to things he says and does. He says he's going to attack human rights and persecute people based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or income; then, he signs an executive order and does those things.
That's the situation in front of us. It has fuck all to do with living in a bubble or the way social media filters our perception of the world, it's current events. We're learning this information by watching him.

So when people say "well he won the election, wait and see before you judge him", I want to know what it would take for you to admit this administration is fascist. Swastika mown onto the White House lawn? Gas chamber schematics? What are you waiting to see, please?

Frankly, I'm far more worried about people like this having power than Trump.

What's that CS Lewis quote about tyrants?

C.S. Lewis wrote:Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

#1227

Nah. It looks like an evolutionry coup - military isolated from NSC, Homeland Security ignoring courts, removal of checks and balances in policy creation. This approach is different in kind not degree. And it's what - Week 2 ?

#1228

Bhurzum wrote:

Frenchies are playing hardball these days. No more just defending themselves with baguettes.

Mmmm, baguettes.

#1229

Hunt wrote:Frenchies are playing hardball these days. No more just defending themselves with baguettes.

Mmmm, baguettes.

And Marine Le Pen's chances just shot way up.

#1230

DrokkIt wrote:
rayshul wrote:Drokkit honestly I'm enjoying King Trump's moves so far. I guess I'm waiting for one that I won't like to be critical.

I really hope it's not going to be one about vaccinations... :(
I'll offer you more from the same individual:

I just feel like "social media is telling us what we want to hear" is becoming a catch-all for any solid political stance. Clearly when Richard Spencer talks about wanting to commit genocide or Bannon speaks of wanting total war we are not filtering that through a lens of easily offended leftist mushiness, we're hearing people proudly confess to being Nazis and it's rightly terrifying.
This is what I am dealing with. People have every right to be worried about how they think a policy decision might play out, but that isn't what is going on.

Why the fuck are they still talking about Richard Spencer? Spencer has no power. He's random cunt with a terrible haircut who likes Trump and does nazi salutes. He became famous for saying "Hail Trump!" and getting punched in the face.

Bannon just isn't the same as Spencer. He's also a cunt, no doubt about that, but he's a far-right populist, not a nazi. He's closer to Nigel Farage than to real neo-nazism. He wants economic nationalism, not racial nationalism, which on a propaganda level means getting immigrants out, getting some businesses back and looking tough and intimidating to other countries. On a practical level he's all about supporting populist initiatives, using the left-wing outrage to distract people, and getting money and power for Trump and his cronies (among which he counts himself).

Bannon is someone who has profited from offering a "safe space" for far-right ideas or basically anything which was called racist (including some actual racism) on Breitbart. He's no nazi though. The fucking Anti-Defamation League, which are calling everyone they dislike an anti-semite (including many real anti-semites), still say that Bannon isn't an anti-semite.

Anti-Defamation League wrote:we are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements from Bannon

Bannon is simply someone who has exploited the vacuum of media friendly to the right, the far-right and anyone who criticized SJWs by offering them Breitbart. I don't think he really cares that much about what people believe as long as they read the articles on his paper.

He's promoting nationalistic populism because he identified a niche in the media and exploited it. He provided favorable coverage to GamerGate, a movement of mostly left-wing/apolitical people, only because the media were all against it and promoting the narrative that poor fragile snowflakes were being harassed by the gaming brutes. He's yet another profiteer, he tapped a part of the media market that nobody was touching, jumped on the Trump bandwagon and now he has power.

Why should he jeopardize his power by doing things that would cause huge amounts of backlash? Why shouldn't he simply implement the things that Trump said he'd do and were popular with the Trump electorate, like building the wall, promoting temporary bans , reducing funds of universities which promote violent protests, gutting the ACA and "bringing back jobs"? Why would he risk a civil war or impeachment for Trump by promoting openly racist/neo-nazi laws?

You don't kill the goose that is laying golden eggs by overfeeding it, unless you're a retard. Bannon has no interest in promoting nazism or an authoritarian fascist state. He has every interest in going with the flow of populism and giving people the simple solutions they want even if they don't make sense, to get filthy rich and influential, to silence critics through bullshit, deflections, false equivalences and moral panics.

Bannon is just the right wing version of the SJWs who piggybacked on Hillary, like Lena Dunham. Those people have only vague beliefs and don't really care about changing society, they care about getting rich, getting their names out, being liked by their fans and protecting their friends. He doesn't really give a shit about mexicans or muslims, he just gives people who are scared of the mexican rapists or muslim terrorists the simple solutions and simplistic reports they want so that he can get money and influence. Just like the SJWs don't really give a shit about women or "POCs", it's all just a narcissistic purity game for clicks, Patreon money and influence.

True believers no longer influence politics. The 21st century is a game of cliques of crony capitalists. Capitalism have won, communism is dead, fascism is also dead, we only see parodies of those ideologies which distract the public from the inside dealings of crony capitalist societies.

Do you want to be really revolutionary? Fight to expose corruption, to promote accurate news, to promote equal standards, to promote professionalism, adherence to the laws, rational thinking and science. Both the left and the right are only big cons by people who manipulate easy moral outrages on the social media for their cronies.

The real political issues are issues of transparency, of legality, of responsibility, of accuracy, of rationality, of defending liberal democratic principles and checks and balances, of taking measures to solve the issues pointed out by scientific research. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Call out the Trumpinistas on Trump's mistakes, fight in favor of the rule of law and of liberal democratic standards, behave in a civil and rational manner, hold people accountable for what they say and do, but accountable to the laws and principles of liberal democracies, not the squawking media mobs of one side or the other. Call and write to your representatives, make your voice heard, criticize things accurately.

If you freak out and behave like a dumbass, give into easy outrage, or even worse legitimize subversion of liberal democratic standards ("punch a nazi!") you're only helping Trump's plan to make all his critics look like idiots.

#1231

Brive1987 wrote:Nah. It looks like an evolutionary coup - military isolated from NSC, Homeland Security ignoring courts, removal of checks and balances in policy creation. This approach is different in kind not degree. And it's what - Week 2 ?

Oh, well, if you want to believe this is a planned coup for the fascist Trump regime, and not simply a way for Trump to get the thing he wants done quickly so then he can get down to business, be my guest. We'll see what happens I guess.

#1232

Hunt wrote:Frenchies are playing hardball these days. No more just defending themselves with baguettes.

Good for them, I say.

Now, if only they'd start using soap...

[youtube][/youtube]

Angry Phil in 3...2...1...

#1233

A French soldier guarding the Louvre in Paris has shot a man who tried to attack a security patrol with a machete shouting "Allahu Akbar", police say.

Still no motive...... :think:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38853841

#1234

Keating wrote:
Frankly, I'm far more worried about people like this having power than Trump.

What's that CS Lewis quote about tyrants?

C.S. Lewis wrote:Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Moral busybodies are only tools for the robber barons these days. The big cake of crony capitalist interests is just too tempting for people not to get a slice. Moral busybodies get into power only when the country is so broke and devastated by a war or by a deep crisis than there's nothing worth stealing. Germany in the 1930s was a broke-ass country in a way that America of the 2010s never was. Russia in the 1917 was a ruin. Same thing for China, Vietnam and Cambodia, or Iraq, Libya and many parts of Syria today.

There are a few exceptions (Iran in 1979 for example) but as a general rule the robber barons are better at managing things that the moral busybodies. Ideologies are pretty much over anyway, only muslim supremacy is more based on ideology than on economic interests (at least at the "true believer" level). Authoritarian cunts are used by the big multinational interests to advance their plans.

#1235

InfraRedBucket wrote:Still no motive...... :think:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38853841

Could the knife-wielding "victim" be a serious art critic? Or maybe he's an artist and his "blood spattered floor" is a minimalist masterpiece in the making?

#1236

Bhurzum wrote:
Angry Phil in 3...2...1...

What's he gonna do? Hit you with his beret?

#1237

He's got a scooter now

#1238

Lsuoma wrote:57 next month.

If you don't mind me saying, you have extremely nice tits for a 57 year old dictator. How about a cup of coffee up in my room?

#1239

CommanderTuvok wrote:If the first 10 days or so are anything to go by, the next 4 years are going to be fucking fun.

I have a strange feeling that Trump has the capability to continue working at this pace. There will probably be less to do. But he doesn't drink or do drugs. Working and grabbing pussy is what he does for fun.

[youtube][/youtube]

#1240

rayshul wrote:I'm tellin' y'all, it started with Rushdie. Unless someone's got an earlier reference.

The Islamic revolution in Iran 1979

#1241

Brive1987 wrote:Is the US in the middle of a coup?
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... fcce435a92

Not a coup when it is a democratically elected president accompanied by a democratically elected power play of Republicans. It was the Democrats winning ball to lose when Obama walked into that power play at the start of his presidency. And lost it they surely have.

#1242

rayshul wrote:I thought what he wrote must have been pretty bad - until I read it, and it was lovely and silly and a bit nuts but whatever.

I never read it. I thought its primary attraction was 'shock value.' Is it a worth while read?

#1243

Could the Democrat party look at these juvenile public tantrums as an accurate gauge of where their constituency is at? Instead of shying away from this, could we see a candidate that panders to it in 2020?

#1244

Kirbmarc wrote: Bannon is just the right wing version of the SJWs who piggybacked on Hillary

....a racial justice warrior?

Yeah I agree with your assessment, but have to say it's very hard to articulate that to a lot of my friends. They aren't bad people, but they are behaving in a stupid and ultimately dangerous way. I guess this is what it feels like to have teenage kids who are going off the rails a bit.

#1245

Keating wrote: What's that CS Lewis quote about tyrants?

C.S. Lewis wrote:Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Definitely the best explanation for the election of Trump I've come across.

The most depressing thing, speaking as a Northern Irishman, is that YOU'RE FUCKING TURNING INTO US! For decades, we've been unable to conduct a civilised political process because the two main political poles are identity groups who see each other as enemies. Protestant politicians appeal to protestant voters, catholic politicians appeal to catholic voters, and nobody's trying to convince anyone from the other side to come over to their cause, because it's not a debate, it's a war and the only way for one tribe to win is to defeat the other tribe.

Right and left are becoming tribes in that way in formerly grown-up countries, and the process has been driven by the identity politics left. Surely anybody with any sense would look at countries where identity politics rules - like, say, Northern Ireland, Belgium, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia - and be able to see that it's a disaster and you're much off with a civil system where politicians propose rival programmes, people vote, and everybody accepts the result at least until the next election. But apparently not. Good luck with that, USian friends.

#1246

DrokkIt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: Bannon is just the right wing version of the SJWs who piggybacked on Hillary
....a racial justice warrior?

As I never tire of pointing out, "Social Justice" was the name of a hard-right newspaper in the US in the 1930s an 40s that published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and speeches by Goebbels.

And now the modern "Social Justice" movement is shutting down speeches by political rivals through mob violence.

#1247

Shatterface wrote:No clue as to motive:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... dly-shoot/

They said the same thing about the Quebec shooter. If we want to be intellectually honest, maybe we should lay the myth to rest. But I do understand it's effect and changing minds as a persuasion tool.

#1248

Aneris wrote: PS: Everything is Perfect in Krautland™ and I am not writing this because the goverment is monitoring the internet. I know that people have strong feelings with the Brexit thing. I kind of like the limeys and simply think it's not exactly helping anyone, but it doesn't affect me and in the end I don't care. Have fun negotiating with "America First". Brits always excelled at comedy.

GERMANY sent 1.15pm
GO ON THEN JUST GO. YOU KNOW YOU'LL BE LONELY BILLY NO-MATES WITHOUT ME.

GERMANY sent 1.18pm
YOU THINK THAT ORANGE SKINNED BITCH WILL BE AS GOOD FOR YOU AS I WAS LOLOLOLOL

GERMANY sent 1.22pm
WE WERE SO GOOD TOGETHER. WHY COULDN'T YOU SEE THAT?? :-(

GERMANY sent 1.23pm
FUCK OF THEN SEE IF I CARE LOLOLOLOL LOSER!

GERMANY sent 1.29pm
:-(

GERMANY sent 1.31pm
I MISS YOUR LAUGH. I MISS YOUR SENSE OF HUMOR :-(

BRITAIN REPLIED 8.40pm
go away you crazy bitch we're done.

#1249

Easy J wrote:Could the Democrat party look at these juvenile public tantrums as an accurate gauge of where their constituency is at? Instead of shying away from this, could we see a candidate that panders to it in 2020?

That's actually quite a sobering thought. Americans could find themselves governed by an Elfwick-like figure complete with neon-haired supporting cast.

"Wokes only" water fountains
Buzzfeed to replace all news media
Mandatory cross-dressing (males only, obviously)
Reparations (at gun point)
Tax-payer funded scheme to dig up then re-bury (upside down) all prominent shitlords from US history
Implementation of "National punch a nazi day"
etc.

Fuck this, I'm moving to the moon.

#1250

I read in today's NYT that 'anarchists' have pledged to use violence to stop the right, if necessary.

Good. What they haven't understood is that the general public loves seeing anarchists getting a good shoeing, which they surely will, and not one fucker will be raise an eyebrow.

#1251

DrokkIt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: Bannon is just the right wing version of the SJWs who piggybacked on Hillary
....a racial justice warrior?

Yeah I agree with your assessment, but have to say it's very hard to articulate that to a lot of my friends. They aren't bad people, but they are behaving in a stupid and ultimately dangerous way. I guess this is what it feels like to have teenage kids who are going off the rails a bit.

Oh, this has nothing to do with morals. It's just tactics. I don't like Bannon's ideas or his tactics, or Trump's ideas or his tactics, but they've worked so far. Trump is a master ruseman and con artist, he's understood the volatile nature of social media and of easy outrage even better than those who used to create those easy outrages. He and Bannon are trolls, they know that the left will react in a certain way, actually they count on it.

The problem with the liberal left is that it has lost the plot. It has lost its connection to economic issues and concerns and has gone off on a moralizing tangent, and for a weird, twisty form of morality at that. It has lost its connection to civil liberties and has gone off the deep end of the "muh microaggression" side. The liberal left was supposed to be about caring for the rights of all people in equal measure, not about going after people for dubious moral transgression.

The main focus of the liberal left was giving people with less opportunities more opportunities and defending people's right to speak, write, criticize, satirize, even to be "wrong", not to scream at people for "cultural appropriation" or "insensitive Halloween costumes" or other petty bullshit only moralizing busybodies care about. The liberal left has given way to the SJWs, and the answer of the Americans tired of SJW insanity was more support for Trump.

Doubling down on the insanity now isn't a good idea, and neither is trying to start a revolution through mass protests, even if Trump is a cunt. Trump has sold to many Americans the narrative that all their problems are due to SJW busybodies who only protect criminals and terrorists and he's the new sheriff in town who's going to scandalize the friends of the "bad dudes" by going after the "bad dudes", and to bring back the jobs that the corrupt rich people have taken abroad.

Anything which reinforces Trump's narrative reinforces Trump. We need to challenge that narrative if we want to defeat him. We need to show people that he's not on their side, that he's as crooked as crooked Hillary if not more, that he's a fraud, that his ideas will lead to more trouble than they're worth. Trying to be morally superior or even worse indulging to the temptation of violence would be a fatal mistake.

#1252

Tigzy wrote:
BRITAIN REPLIED 8.40pm
go away you crazy bitch we're done.

To be quite fair, Germany isn't all that bad.

For an occupied country.

#1253

Easy J wrote:Could the Democrat party look at these juvenile public tantrums as an accurate gauge of where their constituency is at? Instead of shying away from this, could we see a candidate that panders to it in 2020?

FWIW, 2020 is the year Millennials become the largest voting bloc in the US.

#1254

Bhurzum wrote:
Easy J wrote:Could the Democrat party look at these juvenile public tantrums as an accurate gauge of where their constituency is at? Instead of shying away from this, could we see a candidate that panders to it in 2020?
That's actually quite a sobering thought. Americans could find themselves governed by an Elfwick-like figure complete with neon-haired supporting cast.

"Wokes only" water fountains
Buzzfeed to replace all news media
Mandatory cross-dressing (males only, obviously)
Reparations (at gun point)
Tax-payer funded scheme to dig up then re-bury (upside down) all prominent shitlords from US history
Implementation of "National punch a nazi day"
etc.

Fuck this, I'm moving to the moon.

If there's an Elfwick candidate among the Dems you'll have Trump in 2020 and Ivanka Trump in 2036.

#1255

Aneris wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:Just fuck off already and submit to your Islamic masters, we all know that is what you want and it is what you deserve, you white guilt self loathing twats. Just so long as the UK is out of the pinko commie faggot EU then knock yourselves out. I do have some sympathy for the German people but they have been so brainwashed to accept punishment for crimes that they never committed or wouldn't have even condoned as guilty because history. You personally Aneris make me physically sick as other retards think you are reasonable when you are just a twisted commie cunt. You try to post here pretending you disagree with feminism and SJWism but your mast slips here so many times. Brexit can't come soon enough for me and yes I do hope the German people can be saved from Merkel and cunts like you but that is looking like a forlorn hope now.
Really? Damn. I worked so hard to undermine the pit! All these years for nothing. Yes, I'm a feminist (lower case and by common definition) and I declared that at the beginning already. I can add one up. I was also once hanging out with antifa and black bloc types, and went to environmentalist demos in Northern Germany (though not in the heyday which was before my time).

Other than that, the Alt Right is the mirror image of the Ctrl Left, and you are a great example. I argued often enough with your SJW twins who dragged in the opposite direction. Make some outright false claims with the aim to either make the target affirm desired views, or to polarize more. Sometimes they believe in some sort of magic lawyering wherein their target cannot state what they think anymore, because they are currently on trial and just want to save their skin. Or, they cannot qualify and explain, but are somehow locked down on an interpretation. The "winning on the internet argument" tards with their rules then think that any deviation from their own interpretation is the winning state. Well done, Dave.

So where and when did I endorse Islam? I mean, ever. I still regard it as a terrible ideology with no redeeming qualities. I also enjoy the occasional Truck of Peace, and was always anti-theistic. But of course I reject ethnic cleansing or hatred against individuals. I am mostly bored by the Islam debate, and don't see anything new or interesting with it. Other than that, I am pretty sure I did plenty to counter SJWism, and early on dissected it when the term was hardly known. I hope you enjoy your bit of Pharyngula accusations and trial, Dave.

:clap:

PS: Everything is Perfect in Krautland™ and I am not writing this because the goverment is monitoring the internet. I know that people have strong feelings with the Brexit thing. I kind of like the limeys and simply think it's not exactly helping anyone, but it doesn't affect me and in the end I don't care. Have fun negotiating with "America First". Brits always excelled at comedy.

Stop the Presses! WW III kicking off on the Slyme Pit! Film at 11.

#1256

Kirbmarc wrote:Many lunatics in the left seriously believe that "Nazis are in power" in the US. So basically the only thing that Trump has to do to cover his ass is not be an outright nazi (pretty easy) and they'll look like rabid lunatics.

I don't know. Obama's zaniest opposition were convinced he was going to institute Sharia and build FEMA death camps.

#1257

Service Dog wrote:I contend that someone need-only identify a bug in someone-else's dogma-- to have made a meaningful contribution worth knowing-about. It is not necessary for the bug-spotter to also patch the bug with flawless code, to deserve consideration. That's how I see this. It's a universal principal, applicable to all-sorts of discourse... from Breakfast table to Oxford debate. It's generic. […] You are wrong about Straughan's counter-theory. I already corrected you, but you havent amended your understanding. You merely reiterate your previous erroneous version. You dont listen to Straughan or me... only the sound of your own voice & the straw-MRAs you concoct in your own head.

I will repeat: there is no contradiction between Straughan saying Assertion #1) 'House nigger' favorite-mistress-of-the-master feminists complain that they havent been gifted with Enough of he materialistic prizes the Masta battled to obtain/ while those feminists ignore that the field-negro men are deprived as-bad or worse. Versus... Kant's enlightenment values saying Assertion #2.) the Masta's material wealth is a mere Gilded Cage... his true wealth is is freedom to leave the cage... which neither the feminist nor slave-man is allowed.

I try to understand what the other side means, which requires some level of cooperation on your part, too.

The core point here is that MRA either agree to historical wrongs against women, or they don’t. I said my impression (overwhelmingly) is that they deny this or are at least are super reluctant about it. You now vehemently give the impression this isn’t the case. Yet when I start the video of Straughan again, she states it clearly in the first few minutes. The trust of my argument was correct, as I see.

Kirbmarc has discussed with you the point of traditionalism and conservatism. You are also refusing to see the forest there, while standing with the nose leaned against a tree trunk. As if you never heard of the husband as considered head of the family; never came into contact with monotheism where a male deity is the supreme ruler; never noticed how Islam or Purity movement, or conservatives in general go after female sexuality, and try to impose ownership over girls and women, through purity rings, garments and the likes. As if you never ever seen a vintage ad, which portray how women are supposed to be servile and keep their husbands happy when he comes home. As if you are completely obtuse about “traditional family” sometimes including the infantilization of the wive as far as allowing the husband to discipline her; or expecting sexual availability when he wants it, and it’s her “duty” to conform.

The spirit of this argument was to illustrate that the arrow backwards leads to setup, often around the family nucleus, where the wive is a step below her husband, in other words, historically inequality baked into the family Straughan denies. One colourful example for that was the Wive Selling practice. Hence I brought it up.

I contrast this understanding of historical wrongs within patriarchies with Teh Patriarchy™ as proposed in the contemporary postmodernist feminist discourse, which I reject as it operates with a silly oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, which is also ahistorical nonsense. But that is decidedly not what you or Straughan are bringing forward. She does not make any distinctions at all, against your adamant assurances to the contrary. She sets out what she thinks “the feminist lens” is in 3:40 which she then continues to describe as “the lifeblood” of all of feminism.

Consider a straircase where each step represents social standing, the higher the better. The butcher is somewhere on a lower stair, but above the panhandler. The king is on a stair at the top. But where are the women? Postmodernist feminism implies through oppressor-oppressed ideas that women are on their own stairs located below that of the men (which areTeh Patriarchy™). But consider to spread men out that they only occupy the even stairs. A female counterpart is located on the uneven stairs. The queen underneath the king, the butcher's wive below the butcher, the prostitute at the bottom even lower than the panhandler. Before you nitpick with this construction already, keep in mind the the whole lesson about distributions and tendencies. Reality isn't a staircase; things aren't as neatly laid out. But on balance, the picture is correct. On balance, the female counterpart, the miller's wife is a step beneath the miller and had to answer to him.

The postmodernist feminist argue about Teh Patriarchy™ as a cultural force, which is ahistorical nonsense. But consider that in the distant past, physical and biological realities had a bigger impact on our ancestors. Only women could ensure the survival of the family and the tribe, but at once were vulnerable during pregnancy, less productive otherwise, are physically weaker and so on. Men had an interest to be on guard, to avoid raising the milkman's child. Physical strength was important in honour culture, and such factors conspire to make women trying to seek a guardian of sorts, from whom she became dependent. She couldn't exactly call the cops. A divine order emerged, but ancient principles were then carved into stone. Social norms and legal punishment ensured that basic interests of everyone (from that vantage point) were mediated, but of course perpetuated that wifes had to obey their husband. Your ancestors were people, too. Some certainly loved each other, treated each other well and we know from history books that occasionally the wife was the secret head of the household, who organized and took care of everything. Nonetheless, when push came to shove, the principle and basic setup was that she is dependent from him, and can do little about it. A lone woman had suitors and had to make arrangements to get some guy to cover her back, or society would judge her, and throw her down the stairs eventually. Once again, none of this means that men had it easy or necessary better overall. It only means that in the social order and power relations they had a relative upper hand compared to the female counterpart.

The criticism from my direction towards Social Justice Warriors, postmodernists and Intersectionality movement is that they imply a skyhook top-down oppression, which is uniform, i.e. Teh Patriarchy™ and which they seek to change through culture, and attitudes, whereas I believe this structure arises bottom-up, and cannot be divorced from biology (initially) economic conditions, which where then institutionalized. For such reasons similar conditions arouse around the globe. This is one line of criticism only, more is in the assumptions of what is power and about mindsets or attitudes. And this is barely the starting point to me. Where the dependencies still exit and are institutionlized, the feminist project has still work to do, and that is clearly the case in Islam, in conservatism generally (which seeks to undo gains made) and in poor economic conditions that make people more dependent, and which can throw them back into a state where the only thing they can offer is their body.

#1258

Meanwhile in the world of zero self-awareness.

Hemant:

The “left wing secular media” doesn’t need to create false accusations, lies, or misinformation to make Ham or Trump look bad. All we need to do is rewind the videotape and quote them verbatim. Their words speak for themselves.

You know, that's true. They don't need to do any of those things. Which is why it is exasperating that they still do.

From the comments:

this is what nazis do. i hope everybody gets that. nazis lie. and then they accuse the opposition of lying. even when the facts are standing right in front of everyone, in our case, via the internet record and other media outlets.

#1259

Did youall see this one? It was posted by Reason Magazine. Go to the 10 minute mark and watch the University Professor tell the cops they should beat up neo-Nazis. Haha. The "intellectual" left has gone "full-retard"..... (and you should never go "full-retard").

[youtube][/youtube]

#1260

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/georgi ... index.html

Horrible terrible proposed law. Very sad. University officials will be obligated to report claims of rape and sexual assault to law enforcement. And kangaroo university courts will not be allowed to proceed until the actual legal investigation has been completed.

Minor eye rolling until I got to this quote:

The school process is far from perfect; that much is clear from the ever-growing pile of lawsuits against schools over their handling of sexual misconduct cases. But for many it's preferable to a lengthy, invasive criminal inquiry for everyone involved.

We live in a world where feminists have so twisted the world, that a CNN reporter can flat out state in an article that it is better for women not to have rapists reported to the cops.